Man Dies After Unsuccessful Execution

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
Justice.

Justice is a swift, clean execution, as prescribed by the law and courts. Anything messier than that is vengeance.

**Frazzled**

1. Then the criminal doesn't have to appeal.
2. I'm ok with vengeance.

**LordofHats**

I'm disappointed Frazz. You can do better;

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Again, execution is where she matters. Fething up the execution and him suffering is where she doesn't matter one bit.

Fate, Karma, Gaia - whatever, would say otherwise. But again, the victim had a name, she suffered - that seems to get lost in the cacophony of political correctness and misplaced empathy.

Empathy is never misplaced.

Nonsense. Do you have empathy for Stalin? Chairman Mao? Jeffrey Dahmer?

Yes. Understanding why they did what they did is the most important part of making sure that it doesn't happen again. Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance had a really overbearing mother who craved constant attention from his father, including attempting suicide from prescription pills she had become addicted to in order to get this attention. This, like so many other early lives of serial killers, led to feelings of neglect within Jeffrey himself.

Also, don't you find it a bit ironic that the people who you are holding up as being not worthy of empathy could be considered to be lacking in empathy themselves? By showing them no empathy, you are becoming more like them.

Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse? Now how many terrible actions in human history occurred due to lack of empathy?

**daedalus**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?

Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?

Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

Daedalus drops the fusion bomb from orbit BOOOOOOOOOM!

**easysauce**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse? Now how many terrible actions in human history occurred due to lack of empathy?

well, every person you mentioned only got to do what they do because people empathised with them...
not like stalin or hitler did all the work themselves, people had to empathise with their goals ect to further their agendas. the other powers also empathised with them by not doing anything about it, and then there was the whole "appeasment" thing that was done for hitler at first due to empathy.

plenty of wrong decisions were made because someone was too empathetic and made the short term morally easy/pleasing/acceptable/ect choice instead of the more benificial long term choice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?

Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

you bastard! I was just typing that in my response.

The deadly canadian assault beaver force will be at your door momentarily.

**A Town Called Malus**

daedalus wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?

Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

That was not an act of empathy for Hitler but rather a desperate attempt at trying to avoid all-out war. The effects of the First World War was still very much fresh in Europe at the time of his actions. Hence why at the time, many British people actually approved of Chamberlains actions as an attempt to avoid the wholesale slaughter of millions more young men in fields in France. Even in 1940 there were many politicians who felt we should have accepted Hitler's offer of peace.

So not really an act of empathy for Hitler.

**d-usa**

There is a distinct lack of knowledge about what empathy really is...

**daedalus**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
daedalus wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?

Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

That was not an act of empathy for Hitler but rather a desperate attempt at trying to avoid all-out war. The effects of the First World War was still very much fresh in Europe at the time of his actions. Hence why at the time, many British people actually approved of Chamberlains actions as an attempt to avoid the wholesale slaughter of millions more young men in fields in France. Even in 1940 there were many politicians who felt we should have accepted Hitler's offer of peace.

So not really an act of empathy for Hitler.

I agree with that to an extent, but the British disapproving of the Treaty of Versailles and the harsh treatment of ze Germans post-WW1 surely played into the situation, at least a little. I guess I'm not saying "Chamberlain appeased Hitler because he empathized with him", but instead "Chamberlain appeased Hitler because he empathized with Germany".

**A Town Called Malus**

daedalus wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
daedalus wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?

Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

That was not an act of empathy for Hitler but rather a desperate attempt at trying to avoid all-out war. The effects of the First World War was still very much fresh in Europe at the time of his actions. Hence why at the time, many British people actually approved of Chamberlains actions as an attempt to avoid the wholesale slaughter of millions more young men in fields in France. Even in 1940 there were many politicians who felt we should have accepted Hitler's offer of peace.

So not really an act of empathy for Hitler.

I agree with that to an extent, but the British disapproving of the Treaty of Versailles and the harsh treatment of ze Germans post-WW1 surely played into the situation, at least a little. I guess I'm not saying "Chamberlain appeased Hitler because he empathized with him", but instead "Chamberlain appeased Hitler because he empathized with Germany".

That is true. But in addition to that, if France and England had been more empathetic to Germany after WW1 when the treaty of versailles was written there would have been a lot less support for Hitler in the 30s. A lot of his rhetoric was built around the unfairness of the treaty of versailles which a lot germans agreed with.

The treaty of versailles was unfair. Stripping away Germany's main industrial centre but then also hoisting reparations which it could never hope to repay created the perfect environment of poverty through hyper inflation, anger and hopelessness for the Nazis to exploit.

**Frazzled**

If Stalin had been more empathetic to Hitler they could have conquered the world.

If the US had been more empathetic with Imperial Japan, Japan could have been left alone to kill millions of Chinese.

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:
If Stalin had been more empathetic to Hitler they could have conquered the world.

If the US had been more empathetic with Imperial Japan, Japan could have been left alone to kill millions of Chinese.

Got that the wrong way round. Nazi Germany declared war on the USSR.

And empathy =/= agreeing with a persons actions. So nice strawmen

**easysauce**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
If Stalin had been more empathetic to Hitler they could have conquered the world.

If the US had been more empathetic with Imperial Japan, Japan could have been left alone to kill millions of Chinese.

Got that the wrong way round. Nazi Germany declared war on the USSR.

And empathy =/= agreeing with a persons actions. So nice strawmen

and more empathy =/= sunshine rainbows and unicorns as you suggest everything would be better from it.

Being able to put yourself in someone elses shoes doesn't magically solve problems, in fact, say you have a killer who is able to put himself in his victims shoes.

does that mean he wont kill them, or does it just make him more able to predict his victims actions and be a better murder?

heck, the killer in question may have empathised with his victim, doesnt stop him from killing her.

I empathise with the killer in that I can put myself in his shoes and know that it sucks to die that way. It doesnt mean I want to change anything, nor does it necessitate a benificial outcome based soley on my ability to empathise with him

**d-usa**

Well, according to some of the pro-death penalty folks in this thread the victim wouldn't care if we let him go because she is dead.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Spacemanvic wrote:

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

In the boo-hoo fest for the "poor misguided" murderer, no one mentioned the brutal death the 19 year old girl suffered.

You know, the one he was being executed for?

That probably has something to do with the fact that she's already dead, and thus beyond our ability to save, whereas innocent people on death row are not (yet).

The only one calling the murderer "poor misguided" is you, but keep thinking that people don't want him punished if that makes you happy.

**timetowaste85**

Throw me in with the bloodthirsty. He made that girl suffer with two failed painful shots, then buried her alive? His punishment was just. I can sleep fine at night too, thanks for asking. My dad always told me you screwed up when you couldn't look at yourself in the mirror without looking away in shame. I'm gonna look at myself tonight, tell the mirror that the bastard deserved to suffer, and go to sleep easy-peasy. Too much hippy talk and kumbaya horse pucky. Any shred of sympathy for his botched execution dried up when I heard the full story of what he did to the girl. I, like Fraz, am okay with vengeance.

**TheAuldGrump**

It is not that he was not a monster.

It is that we must not ourselves become monsters.

We should be horrified when things like this happen - and likewise be horrified that a man shot his victim, then buried her alive.

At least we no longer make executions into pageants, but it is meet that we grant death swiftly, and with as little pain as possible - not for the prisoners being executed, but for our selves.

The Auld Grump

**timetowaste85**

Like I said, Grump, I'm totally okay with being bloodthirsty. As evidenced by the medium rare prime rib I'm eating after a long day at work that's still reddish pink in the middle. If anything, it's almost too well done. If it ain't screaming when I put the knife in it, it ain't cooked enough.

God, I need help, don't I?

Edit: how the FETH did autocorrect turn 'knife' into 'kilobits'?!

**reds8n**

Please don't attach non wargaming images directly to Dakka. If you wish to show/share any such images then you need to use an offsite host.

Thanks.

**Iron_Captain**

wow. Torturing someone to death like that is just wrong.
If they wanted to execute him they should have just put a bullet through his head. Much quicker, cheaper and humane.
Alternatively, they should bring the guillotine back. Old-fashioned maybe, but there is no better tool for (nearly) painless executions.

**whembly**

I think this chick has changed my mind...
The conservative case against the death penalty

Executions are getting harder and harder to defend

Two recent botched executions, one in Ohio and one in Oklahoma, have prompted renewed soul-searching among Americans over whether capital punishment is either humane or effective.

That’s a good thing. But the time to ask ourselves what kind of country and society we want to be isn’t ideally in the aftermath of two spectacular failures of justice, just as it isn’t in the midst of some gruesome murder trial, when emotions are running high and mercy for the perpetrator seems almost an obscene suggestion.

The country needs to have a clear-eyed conversation about the death penalty, one that puts both anecdotal and emotional arguments aside in favor of some serious analysis. Those conversations have begun, but they are still far from clear-eyed.

The logistics of capital punishment, for example, are hardly the point. Drug cocktails can be modified. There are effective and humane ways to kill a person, and if that’s our main concern, there’s a healthy body of research on euthanasia that can guide reform.

The other line of discussion that inevitably emerges is over archaic ideas of justice and vengeance. Hammurabi’s “eye for an eye” is often invoked, but I very much doubt we’d enjoy living under the full code, whereby boys who strike their fathers have their fingers cut off, robbers are put to death and taking slaves is just fine.

Biblical verse is also regularly recited, but the problem here is that there are competing lessons within. The Gospel of Matthew admonishes the “eye for an eye” system in favor of turning the other cheek, whereas Exodus, very much in Old Testament fashion, graphically elaborates on the illustration, adding “tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Yes, we get it.

These kinds of arbitrary invocations don’t address the here and now of the death penalty debate. (And, let’s not ignore the fact that the death penalty often is not truly an “eye for eye.” Shouldn’t a man who raped 10 children be raped himself, 10 times over? How is lethal injection equal punishment for a torturous death?)

Picking and choosing codes of justice from thousands of years ago seems an ill-advised way to begin an adult conversation about what the death penalty truly is: state-sanctioned murder. And if that’s the case, then we need to ask some very adult questions.

For one, is it just? Starting from a pro-life point of view, it hardly seems consistent with a culture that values life. In fact, a couple of Republicans in Kentucky are reconciling that very notion right now. State Rep. David Floyd introduced a bill to repeal the state’s death penalty, arguing in the Louisville Courier-Journal that conservatives “should not support a state government program that can kill innocent people.”

And indeed, innocent people are killed. In a study released last week, of the 7,482 death sentences handed down from 1973 to 2004, 117, or 1.6%, were eventually exonerated. The authors concluded though that with more time and resources, more than 200 additional prisoners would also have been cleared.

How many wrongful executions have we overseen? It’s nearly impossible to know — which in and of itself, should give us serious pause about the justness of capital punishment.

The next obvious question we must ask is: Does capital punishment work?

For decades, in order to satisfy death-penalty opponents who said supporters were motivated purely by blood lust, proponents have tried to make the argument that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. And for just as many decades, the evidence of that has either been non-existent or inconclusive.

In 2012, the National Academy of Sciences picked apart immense bodies of research and bluntly issued cease and desist warnings, claiming the studies have been flawed or futile. Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge H. Lee Sarokin might have put it best when he wrote in 2011: “Persons contemplating murder do not sit around the kitchen table and say I won’t commit this murder if I face the death penalty, but I will do it if the penalty is life without parole.”
In the absence of any evidence that proves the death penalty reduces crime, we should continue asking serious questions about our commitment to it.
(And might I remind fellow conservatives that we are quick to point out that there’s no evidence gun control reduces gun crime; we should apply the same level of scrutiny here.)

Another question we must consider, crass though it is: Is the death penalty cost-effective?

The answer is undeniably “no.”

Death penalty trials alone can cost $1 million more than ones in which life without parole is sought, according to Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center.

The cost of incarcerating a death-row prisoner can outpace the cost of housing a general-population prisoner by $100,000 a year, according to a 2011 California study.

In some states, a death penalty case can bankrupt a county. Seattle Times writer Jonathan Martin found that in Washington state, criminal justice costs consume 80% of county budgets, and administrators routinely worry about the financial devastation a capital case will cause.

Worse, states pay for the death penalty whether they use it or not. In New Jersey, prior to abolishing it, taxpayers spent more than a quarter-billion dollars on a capital punishment system that, over 23 years, executed no one.

As a pro-life, fiscally responsible conservative, I’ve long had problems with capital punishment. But in the face of all this evidence that the death penalty is neither just nor effective nor cost-efficient, it makes me wonder why anyone still supports it.

It will be impossible to argue with those who say, “it’s only fair” and “an eye for an eye.” And it’s futile and deeply inappropriate to reason with victims of heinous crimes who, understandably, want retaliation.

But putting anecdotes, trite expressions and emotion aside, it’s imperative that we all question our steadfast beliefs about capital punishment. And conservatives in particular, should lead the charge to abolish it.

One of the best argument against the Death Penal I've seen.

Did I mention she's also Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n

Spoiler:

**d-usa**

I swear, If Obama was a chick you wouldn't be bitching about Benghazi all the time

...

Spoiler:

...scratch that

**Easy E**

Oh look, execution in the news again...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/lethal-injection/arizona-execution-joseph-wood-took-nearly-two-hours-n163086

This one took two hours of gasping before the guy died.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Oh look, execution in the news again...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/lethal-injection/arizona-execution-joseph-wood-took-nearly-two-hours-n163086

This one took two hours of gasping before the guy died.

Wait, is that supposed to be good or bad?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Oh look, execution in the news again...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/lethal-injection/arizona-execution-joseph-wood-took-nearly-two-hours-n163086

This one took two hours of gasping before the guy died.

Wait, is that supposed to be good or bad?

Depends on how soft you are?

Also, love how in the article the guy says "this violates the constitution's amendment on cruel or unusual punishment" What he's failing is in the "or" part, as the constitution reads AND

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Oh look, execution in the news again...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/lethal-injection/arizona-execution-joseph-wood-took-nearly-two-hours-n163086

This one took two hours of gasping before the guy died.

Wait, is that supposed to be good or bad?

The issue, really is that the most effective drugs, like sodium thiopental or pentobarital, is very difficult to obtain now because the makers refuse to allow sedatives designed for medical treatment to be used for executions:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/19/politics/death-penalty-us/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

So, the states have to come up with riskier cocktails for executions.

Obviously, the strategy here by the opponents is to shape public opinion by making states choose between either canceling death sentences or facing political fallout from more botched executions caused by unproven cocktails.

What I don't understand, is if the states continues to perform executions, why don't they use Helium overdose? Literally puts them to "sleep".

Maybe not

Justice

enough?

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

What I don't understand, is if the states continues to perform executions, why don't they use Helium overdose? Literally puts them to "sleep".

Maybe not Justice enough?

Why can't they just them down with PCP, like we do cats?? ohh, wait...

**Soladrin**

So, when will we go back to firing squads? Or maybe a syringe full of bleach, that should do the trick.

**whembly**

Soladrin wrote:
So, when will we go back to firing squads? Or maybe a syringe full of bleach, that should do the trick.

Is that strong on

Justice

??

Honesty... Capital Punishment isn't something that I'd advocate for...

Maybe hard labor/chain-gangs, but the arguments against Capital Punishment does have merits.

However, opponents who support these companies (and the EU for restricting propofol) for refusing to sell the medications used for executions is making it worse for the condemned.